In recent years, the debate
over the right to keep and bear arms has exploded into a heated controversy
that has polarized the American people. At the center of this debate is
the intent and wording of the Second Amendment. Those groups and individuals
opposed to the private ownership of firearms argue that there is no individual
right to keep and bear arms because the Amendment refers to the people's
"collective right," as members of a well-regulated State militia.
The contrary position is the Amendment created, and or secures an individual
right. In the author's opinion, this debate, from a federal standpoint,
is totally flawed because it is the system of government established by
the Constitution that is the key to resolving this controversy not the
intent and wording of the Second Amendment.

The
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the groups opposed to the
private ownership of firearms, claims the right enumerated in the Second
Amendment pertains to the State militias. On their website, this organization
claims the Second Amendment was adopted "to prevent the federal
government from disarming the State militias."

The U.S. Constitution
established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government.
With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many
of the "anti-federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument
of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal
army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government
from disarming the state militias.

This statement infers that
the Constitution, as originally written, granted the federal government
the power to disarm the militias and the States wrote and adopted the
Second Amendment to prevent the federal government from exercising this
constitutional power over their militias.

The Coalition to Stop Gun
Violence claims the Amendment was adopted to "ensure the right
of the states to maintain their own militias."

"The Second Amendment
was adopted to ensure the right of states to maintain their own militia
to protect themselves against foreign and federal encroachment."

This statement infers that
the States either did not have the "right" to maintain their
militias or if they did, the "right" was not secure until they
adopted the Second Amendment.

Proponents of the individual
right to keep and bear arms have also made various assertions concerning
the Second Amendment. They claim the right enumerated in the Amendment
is an individual right and refer to it as a "constitutional"
or "Second Amendment" right. This assertion infers that the
American people have the individual right to keep and bear arms because
the right is specifically enumerated in one of the amendments to the Constitution.

In spite of the glaring
differences between these two factions, they are in agreement on two points.
First, there is a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms. One side claims the right is a "collective right"
that pertains to the State militias, while the other asserts it is an
individual right that pertains to the American people. Second, the protection
of the right, whether it's collective or individual, depends on the Second
Amendment.

Contrary to the assertions
by the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the individual
States do not derive any rights or powers from the Constitution. The Constitution
is a grant of power from the States to their federal government. When
the Constitution was written and adopted, the States already had the so-called
"collective right" to maintain armed militias independent of
the federal government. Since this so-called "right" was never
surrendered, and the federal government was not granted the power to prevent
the States from maintaining armed militias, the States retained this "right"
irrespective the Constitution or the subsequent adoption of the so-called
"collective right" Second Amendment.

This principle also applies
to the people of the several States. There was an existing right to possess
firearms when the Constitution was written and adopted. Since the people
did not surrender the right, and the federal government was not granted
the general power to regulate the right or prevent the people from exercising
the right within the several States, the people retained the right independent
of the Constitution or any interpretation of the Second Amendment.

In the author's opinion,
the firearms community has failed to grasp these principles. Anti-gun
organizations, like those mentioned above, have been allowed to define
the parameters of the debate. They have succeeded in restricting the debate,
for the most part, to the intent and wording of the Second Amendment.
Since the individual right to possess firearms exists independent of the
Constitution or the Second Amendment, and the federal government was not
granted the general power to regulate the right within the several States,
the debate over the intent and wording of the Amendment is a diversion
from the real issue.

The key component in this
debate, from a federal standpoint, should be the system of limited government
established by the Constitution. Those groups opposed to the private ownership
of firearms have based their position on the erroneous belief that the
federal government can enact any law it chooses unless the Constitution
contains a specific provision restricting its power. This is a total distortion
of the system of government established by the Constitution. The Constitution
established a federal government of limited enumerated powers. Under this
system of government, the federal government can only exercise those powers
enumerated in the Constitution. The core principle of our constitutional
system of government is every power not granted is denied irrespective
of the subsequent adoption of the Tenth Amendment.

When there is a discussion
over the individual right to keep and bear arms, the firearms community
should refrain from debating the intent and wording of the Second Amendment.
They should force their opponents to cite the provision of the Constitution,
supported by the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of
1787 and the Federalist Essays that grants the federal government the
general power to regulate the right within the several States. Since this
power was never vested in the federal government, a debate over the intent
and wording of the Second Amendment is like debating whether your neighbor
can borrow your lawnmower on Sunday's when he was never given permission
to use it in the first place.

Proponents of the "collective
right" interpretation, in the author's opinion, have engaged in a
systematic effort to distort the nature of the Constitution and the character
of the federal government in order to prevail on this issue. In addition
to their erroneous assertion that the Constitution established a general
government of unlimited power, these groups and individuals claim individual
rights come from, or depend upon, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Hence, their claim that there is no individual right to possess firearms
because the right enumerated in the Second Amendment pertains to the State
militia.

Contrary to the assertions
of various anti-firearms organizations, the Bill of Rights did not create
or establish any rights. The sole purpose of the Amendments, as stated
in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, was to prevent the federal government
from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish this,
"further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being proposed.
The Amendments, when adopted, simply placed additional restraints on the
powers of the federal government. Thus, the Second Amendment did not confer
any rights collective or individual.

The Second Amendment is
like adding an extra lock to the front door of your house. Even if you
didn't add it, you could still lock the door. If the Second Amendment
had never been added to the Constitution, the States would still have
the "collective right" to maintain armed militias and the people
would still have the individual right to keep and bear arms because the
Amendment is not the source of these rights and the federal government
was never granted the general power to regulate either.